486 Comments

In a free democracy or a free republic consent is extremely important.

Immigration reform is unnecessary. It would be detrimental to the United States which should be more restrictive towards immigration and have negative impact on many immigrants and their country of national origin.

Drawing on the wisdom of Orwell, this is a good time to repeat what is already manifest: Latin America remains poor and backward not despite multilateral "assistance" but, in a large part, because of it. The IDB has been going at the problem of poverty in Latin America since 1959, but it hasn't acted alone. In the postwar period the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and untold bilateral agencies have blanketed the region with aid. World-wide foreign aid has boomed. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "in 2008, total net official development assistance (ODA) from members of the OECD's Development Assistance Committee (DAC) rose by 10.2% in real terms to USD 119.8 billion. This is the highest dollar figure ever recorded."

Does it follow that poverty persists because the amounts have been just too measly to do the job? It did for Mr. Geithner and the foreign-aid brigades. But rather than rely on those with vested interests, it's more useful to look at the empirical evidence. A 2006 paper titled "Foreign Aid, Income Inequality and Poverty," from the research department of the IDB itself, looked at the period 1971-2002 and found "some weak evidence that foreign aid is conducive to the improvement of the distribution of income [sic]. When the quality of institutions is taken into account, however, this result is not robust. This finding is consistent with recent empirical research on aid ineffectiveness in achieving economic growth or promoting democratic institutions."

So now that we know it didn't work, Mr. Geithner wanted more of it. This is what the late, great development economist Peter Lord Bauer called "the disregard of reality." In a 1987 essay in the Cato Journal, he called the claim that poverty is a trap that cannot be escaped without external aid an "obvious conflict with simple reality." "All developed countries began as underdeveloped," Bauer wrote. "If the notion of the vicious circle were valid, mankind would still be in the Stone Age at best."

"The decisive element" in bringing a society out of poverty is "the development of the entrepreneurial reserves that exist in its men and women," Mr. Vargas Llosa writes. "The institutions that grant more freedom to their citizens and more security to their citizens' possessions are those that best facilitate the accumulation of wealth."

It is obvious that economic liberty and property rights are the key drivers of development, and that there is no correlation between the volume of foreign aid a country receives and its respect for these values. Yet what is more troubling is the IDB's reputation for working against liberalization in the region, most notoriously, against the flat tax. With its institutional checkbook it easily overpowers civic groups that try to limit the power of government. In doing so it promotes neither development nor just societies.

Do immigrants expect a free lunch when they come to the United States?
The 70,000 Central American children certainly would be housed, fed, clothed and receive medical care while waiting for their deportation without having worked to produced anything to pay for it.

The best thing for many immigrants would be to return to their country and start businesses there.

Sgt Tahmooressi was driving a truck loaded with all of his possessions, including a few guns, when he crossed the border. Before he could get back on the right track the Mexican military quickly surrounded him. He declared that he had the weapons and he went to jail.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached its highest number yet of companies audited for illegal immigrants on their payrolls this past fiscal year.

Audits of employer I-9 forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million. The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.

The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama's immigration policy.

When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants. It's not a new stand, but one he will likely highlight as his administration launches efforts to revamp the nation's immigration system.

if millions of more immigrants come to the USA it will cease to be USA and become a country like Mexico. China is importing so much stuff. The average worker in mainland China earns about $3500/yr. This is what capitalists want. Cheap labor. That is less than $10/day. What Americans live on $10/day? Those without property, without education, and without jobs...

Mexicans are already the largest group of immigrants in the USA.
There are 12 million undocumented aliens in the USA already.
China has an immigrant population less than 2%.

Untouchables on Wall Street was the best example of US Senate Committee and FBI investigating Capitalists who committed a list of crimes of the century with the Justice Department unwilling to present findings to a grand jury.

Who Goes To Jail? Matt Taibbi on American Injustice Gap From Wall Street to Main Street (1/2)

Another sad story. Odily Castro, the mother, must have had a case worker. She was granted political asylum a process that should have documented her dependents. The1980s were during the Reagan/Bush administrations.

It was a time when Reagan wanted more deregulation and smaller federal government. There is probably an Iran/Contra connection in this. Let's blame him. .

USA should Stop causing and arming strife in other countries ( like south of the border for instance ) - perhaps if populations in other countries didn't have to flee to another country to try to stay alive - well you see where I am going.

Agreed = shock doctrine = breaking things so that the USA ( TPTB ) can control from a safe distance ( well that is the plan anyway ).

If the USA were concerned about and were actually trying to foster peace health and prosperity - well then - the USA would be sending REAL aid. Like clean energy/industry/transportation/farming technology to other countries in the effort to remove poverty hunger disease ( strife of all kinds ) - and the USA would be doing the same at home ( in the USA ) as proper leaders should.

That's bullshit... these are outlaws as people who live outside the law. The Constitution fails to define "citizen" but I know in the colonial vernacular these people do not fit that definition. Because citizenship requires fidelity and reciprocity.

Well, when we were a country that actually produced things the idea of growing the market for our goods, proportionally, was vital. But that is no longer the case. Give us the worlds tech, science, and medicine and throw everything else back because they are nothing but an economic drain. It's either that or our rich will one day flee for the next Dubai and this entire country will be just as impoverished as south of the border. Setting and maintaining one's standard of living is a personal choice.

Let's just take our money back from those greedy, selfish, unamerican, lazy rich fucks who invest in non American business, stole our govt, and rigged the system to allow the massive redistribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1% over the last 30 years.

I'm just saying that the economic environment is entirely changed. We no longer have companies seeking to grow who employ unskilled labor. Our tech has relocated to China and those that enter now come in search of handouts. They will not grow the market in the US; they will only grow the market for corporations that import extremely cheap products and the Fed which constantly loans to provide government services. If we want to reverse this we have to say no to the uneducated and impoverished and yes to the wealthy and the educated in science, tech, and medicine. Clinton himself said the very same thing - roll back immigration to pre-Reagan levels. Working class America, both black and white, lost some 3 trillion last year to illegal hispanics who exported much of that via the US postal money order.

Can you read moron? My username IS inclusionman!! Focus on substance if you arguments are strong enough to stand up to debate. If your args are weak, you should distract with meaningless, inaccurate harassment about old, unused usernames.

The US has always benefited from the import of tech, science, and medicine and at times even cheap labor. But it has no use for the cheap labor we are importing now by illegal means; there is a labor glut and the illegals are nothing but an economic liability; only the Fed Reserve benefits - everybody else suffers, nationwide.

You're wasting your time. Because these people are impacting the market value of homes, the cost of public education, the cost of our healthcare, the cost of law enforcement and incarceration - there are no positives here unless you're trying to expand your American market. How many have died of TB lately in LA? And it's all coming from Mexico and South America - virtually all of them test positive.

Not true... many neighborhoods took a double hit - first for the Mexicans and then again in '08 with the crash. And they are closing hospitals where I am because 9 out of 10 are illegals who have no plan whatsoever to pay the bill.

You are absolutely wrong!! It IS the price gauging and fraud by the private health insurance industry, big pharma, medical device supplies, and other medical 'players'. Immigrants ain't got nothing to do with these problems.

Sorry, not immigrants but good old fashioned white American corp 1%'rs, putting profits over people and fuckin the 99%.

There should be universal citizenship. The Roman Republic fell because it failed to treat all people like actual people. The US republic will follow suit if it doesn't start treating all people like people.

The native American people came here thousands of years ago when the land was uninhabited.

There is a possibility that some european, stock may have mixed the earliest indigenous people, but before about 500 years ago when european invasion/attempted genocide of the indigenous peoples of north America (& the planet) they were unbothered.

So whatever you think about some vikings skipping icesheets from france, the American Indian was NOT an immigrant, they ARE the indigenous people of north America.

We don't know what happened to pre-clovis so there is no way anyone can say definitively that what we label as Native American through DNA analysis was indigenous. I'm not sure of what significance it is, either.

For their long dead ancestors maybe; but the fact is that I didn't, nor anyone else alive did anything to them, nor has a single native American alive today been systematically victimised by the us government.

'Our' leaders? I didnt vote for them........ I dont remeber being consulted on whether to invade a foriegn country guns ablazing or not. I dont even remember being asked if i wanted to be an american citizen or not. They may be your 'leaders', but the only leader of me is myself.

I dont drive. I could care less how much other people pay for thier gasoline.

Should the Chinese govt. pay reperations the Tibetians? Should the Indian government pay reperations to the Sikhs? Should the Australian govt. pay reperations to the aborigines? Should the Egyptian govt pay reperations to the Coptics?

When does it end and how will reperations fix the original cause of the injustice?

What if the Native Americans don't want the great plains? What if they want New York or California?

If you want to make future generations pay for the actions of their dead ancestors, then you must be willing to pay for crimes that we might be able to pin on your long dead uncles and aunts and great grandparents. If we found out that your great, great grandfather was a serial killer, but he's long dead, are you willing to serve his sentence for him? According to you, that would be the "just" thing to do.

Reparations are only "just" if those reparations come from those who either perpetrated the crimes or allowed them to occur. It is completely UNJUST to make innocent parties pay for the crimes of others. My ancestors didn't kill or oppress any Native Americans. My paternal grandmother was 1/2 Cherokee and I don't want the great plains...thanks.

It is not the children of criminals serving their sentence. It is a country making amends. It was the government of the USA that perpetrated the war crimes against humanity against the native Americans. And as such the US govt MUST make amends.

Instead of money, give them your time then. Here's a list of organizations, many in NYC. Go volunteer for one of them and tell them you are there to make up for the sins of our fathers. Put your money where your mouth is. Or you could just sit in front of a computer all day.

You actually believe that any of the individuals who participated in wars between the US and Native American Indians might still be alive? Wow.

Define legally. To me-something has to be written and or clarified and adopted by all of a given society in order to become a law. Something cannot be illegal if there is not a previously established and agreed upon "legal" behavior.

I know of no law prior to the pilgrims landing here stating that people from another country could not come to this land and set up residence. Do you? Indian law? Intercontinental Land Law agreement? If there was no such law, you can't say that the pilgrims were "illegal" aliens.

And if you want to go after the governments responsible for those early "illegal immigrants" then address Spain and England. They should be among those from whom you seek reparations right? I mean, you have to be consistent. If the early American settlers weren't here legally (because there is some mysterious law I haven't heard of) then NONE of the people living on American soil today are here legally either. Not the Anglo Saxons, the Russians, the Mexicans, the Cubans, the Irish, the English, the Iranian, the Swiss.....etc.

"The reference to Eve may lead to the misconception that she was the only living female of her time, even though she co-existed with other females. However, her female contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken female line to every woman living in the present day."

That's what I read from your first link. Nowhere does it say she "just sprouted" out of the earth.

"The adjective indigenous is derived from the Latin etymology meaning "native" or "born within" formed from indigena, literally " born within (the tribe)". According to its meaning in common English use, any given people, ethnic group or community may be described as being indigenous in reference to some particular region or location to which they trace their traditional tribal land claim."

Again, proves my point, BUT adds the caveat that since I can trace my traditional tribal land claim to the United States, I am indigenous to the US. People coming to the US today who cannot trace their tribal land claim to the US are given the title IMMIGRANTS because they are "non-indigenous" .

I had no idea you were an expert on all things ridiculous and anthropological. If you'd like to provide your credentials and evidence that proves that your statements regarding me are indeed facts, rather than just opinion, I'd be most interested.

You still have no idea who Mitochondrial Eve is, yet you want to speak as if you know. You don't even understand the word "indigenous." If you had any knowledge at all you'd know that it doesn't take an expert to understand those concepts. Those are elementary concepts.

Maybe you just don't understand that elementary concepts detailed in your links. Did you read them?

I posted a response to someone else including the most basic definition of indigenous there is, as well as the idea that Native Americans came from somewhere else...they didn't just spring up out of the earth.

YOU decided to interject links to Mitochondrial Eve and "indigenous people" along with the admonition to "read a little".

Now, nothing in your links disproves what I said, and seems to actually prove me right. So I cannot imagine why you felt the need to say anything in the first place, because at an elementary level most people would find such behavior assumptive and rude.

Now, since all I posted about Mitochondrial Eve was a quote DIRECTLY from your link, you're again being assumptive and rude to reply that I "want to speak as if I know" because I'm not the one who brought her up in the first place.

The fact that YOU want to argue about the most elementary definition of the word "indigenous" and pretend to be some kind of expert on me or what I know or what I want is my point here. It's arrogant. That's an elementary concept.

As we all know, Clovis was preceded by other peoples... what we don't know, is where these pre-Clovis originated. But today's Native American was certainly a migrant and an invader.

It's not about flags or countries, it's about nations. An im-migrant cannot 'im' if there are no territorial boundaries - what a border represents in evolutionary language is the limit of one's defensible territory - and at the time of initial European settlement, in MA Bay, there were no borders - they settled on abandoned real estate, in part, because the Native American did not like waterfront property.

People are the same everywhere; the Native American was capable of vulgarity, too. And this isn't about rights; it's about evolution and migrations and the development of nation states. It's not about people or peoples, it's about populace, and as such it is a force that lives outside ourselves. And we continue to evolve as we speak.

With all the think tanks out there trying to abolish these divides... the best word they could come up with was "tolerance"?

Try saying these two sentences one after the other and see which one feels better...

"I accept you."

"I tolerate you."

The first is positive and loving, makes you want to smile, and to look in a persons eyes as you're saying it. The second is negative, makes your face go into a natural frown and not want to meet eyes. One encourages acceptance and healing, the other encourages reminders of why we are divided.

Its the simplest of things, how could they mess it up that bad? Language is so important...and 'they' know it.

I saw that link earlier but didn't click on it until now. Wow, interesting. And there looks to be a whole lot more on that site than just the Powell memo. I've bookmarked it so I can check out the rest of it as well. Thanks again, Renneye.

But, damn people! Quit posting all these interesting links! There's not enough time in the day to read 'em all!

Just kidding, of course. The links are one of the best tools on this forum. Keep 'em comin'.

I totally agree with the distinction that you make between the words "accept" and "tolerate"

There is a lot of people who are working hard at strengthening these alliances/ACCEPTANCE!.

You can add to that community groups, churches, 'radicals' that's us ;-), and reformers of all stripes who simply will not TOLERATE ;-) the corrupt status quo...that promoted divisions between us.... any longer.

Hence, again.. the theme for this year's May Day rally, Workers' Rights, Immigrant Rights, and Jobs For All

~Odin~

On a side note, i haven't forgotten your last ~.^ post. This time man keep woman waiting

Now that's the proper context for those words. This isn't the first time I've seen your love of words. As I recall, there was some kind of poetry going on not too long ago!

'Radical'...now that wouldn't be anti-government, would it? You're just asking to be thrown in jail now!

Incidentally, in Montreal, Quebec, there was recently an anti-protest law put in place, that states that people are not allowed to protest without permission and an itinerary. Also, no masks allowed during protests/demonstrations. 279 students were arrested on Friday while protesting the new by-law.

You're right Odin, its the youth that will take the brunt of this. But we'll help in any way we can. You've been, & are the inspiration here, for that.

Anyone who wants systemic change....a sea change, or "radical" change in the cesspool-like way that our political and financial institutions are run could rightly be termed a "radical"

Radicals were present in the early 20th century labor movements; the Civil Rights movement; and the Vietnam War protests. All great struggles that wanted and achieved at least 'near' systemic change had radicals in them. 'They' rarely get what they want, but we have gotten so much more than we would have without them. The question we have to ask ourselves today is: Considering the crisis (which encompasses the whole world) that we find ourselves in now, will reform be enough?

Clara Lemlich was a communist, and Rose Scheiderman who was a great friend to the Roosevelts was a socialist

When you are going up against a powerful, perverted "radical" system that has a lot to lose when we are successful, you need an equally powerful "radical" movement to do it. We, OWS are 'that,' but we have alliances with less radical groups that are willing to settle for far less

There is nothing subversive about peacefully building COMMUNTY, doing OUTREACH, and buiding RESISTANCE including protesting the current corrupt status quo

Admittedly, i have not been following what has been happening in Montreal. The last i had heard at a Columbus Circle speak-out from a young lady from Quebec was that both the civil liberty restrictive Bill 78, and the tuiition hikes had been rescinded, after more than once they had tens of thousand of people in the streets

Yes I take a perverse delight in "allumeuse[ing]" you. Errr i did find the right meaning for that word, right? Ut-oh another ban may be in the works...lol

I then, would be considered a 'radical' in the extreme. I am of the mindset that reform is not only, 'not enough'...but not even possible. The .01% own and rule everything ...at least anything of importance concerning wealth...but more importantly, control. How can we use the system then...'their' system...to put anything right?

My father was an entrepreneur...and one of his philosophies was 'go big, or go home'. That's the way he raised us and achieved stability for us, and right or wrong...it made an impression on me. I have my eye on the 'global' picture...and I sense that the only way we will ever have a free future for our kids is if we take our world back. In essence, 'leave the oligarchs' system and create a 'People's Society'.

'Demanding' anything from these psychopaths is futile. Spinning our wheels. We simply must turn our backs on them and start taking care of ourselves and each other. Only WE know how regular folks live and what our fellow human beings need to live in dignity. Tall order? Uh-huh.

When I say leave their system behind...I mean ALL of it...down to every archaic, antiquated descriptive term...and start fresh from the ground up, with new terminology. We will NEVER convince 6 to 7 billion people that communism or socialism is safe. Whether they are 'safe & fair' or not isn't even the issue. Lets start with something all together different...like, "Self-Rule".

If the global uprising happened fast enough, we could conceivably succeed, but alas, my fear is that the bulk of the population is not waking up fast enough. Its slow going, Odin. I admire your patience.

At the pace the 'awakening' is happening now, the .01% is able to stay ahead of us and meet our sporadic uprisings with new laws that make it 'legal' for them to do whatever they want. They are quite adept at it. Its easy...all they have to do is make just about everything illegal. Pretty soon they'll be able to haul us in for chewing gum. It doesn't even have to make sense, so long as they are within their 'legal right'.

But despite it being slow going, what choice do we have really, but onward. So YES, building COMMUNITY, OUTREACH and RESISTANCE. The Gandhian style is my personal favourite. Future generations need to see that we fought for them.

OK now Renny just to confuse you now, it is my contention that you are not a radical.

Assuming you just want a better more just world for yourself and your children, where justice is restored, and people are put before profits how the hell can you consider yourself a radical? I mean, what's so radical about that? In the world we now live in where nearly everything is twisted, you are not a radical in that context. But what has been, and continues to go on is very radical.

Building our own more just world is a worthy goal, and something we should all pursue in both our minds and in our actions, but considering how huge and embedded the corrupt system is, I think that we have to devote a lot of our energy to changing it as well. This will only change when this corrupt system is extremely pressured to do so. I am not sure how even I want to interpert that, but I believe it to be true.

I am not promoting communism, but socialism would be a big step forward, but even that would not be enough at this point. I am glad other people in OWS are giving more thought to this, so i am leaving myself open on that one.

I'm not sure if "patience" is the right word in describing me. It's just the slow realization that I have had that this is going to take a while which is disappointing to me, and many others here. So I think the attribute that we will all need is PERSEVERANCE, all while building COMMUNITY, doing OUTREACH and building RESISTANCE along the way in our struggle. That means being there for each other in celebrating our victories, and comforting each other in our defeats which inevitably we will have both. I know that might sound a bit lofty, but we are in a noble struggle Renny, and we will be ensuring ourselves a legacy which our progeny will be proud of, just by being here

Odin...my dear man. I'm not confused. You wouldn't be implying that I'm stupid, now would you? Would you like your cyber-slap now, or later? Heheheh!

I know I'm not a radical...and you know I'm not a radical, but I would certainly be 'considered' as such by a government whose sorry keester I want to kick to the curb and start a "People's Society". A society, 'for the people...by the people'.

In the US, terrorism now means indefinite detention, and protesters are deemed "low-level terrorists". Given that the Department of Defense considers protesting to be a form of terrorism...you too are seen as a radical, though in reality you are a peaceful person, hoping for the same things for our children and future generations, that others the world over, are hoping for.

Bearing that the US took a massive step in the direction of a totalitarian regime, that squelches dissent with imprisonment...I can't see how we will change anything from the outside. They have law on their side and every system/department/military/agency by which we could have conceivably used to 'change' the heavily embedded corrupt system.

For all intended purposes a 'People's Society' would be very close to the purest meaning of socialism. The cardinal difference being that "WE" the people would control it, and operate via an unadulterated democracy. Dignity, justice, freedom, education, safety and indeed love for all.

I am of the thinking that turning our backs on the existing global governments, oligarchs and monarchs is the only true path to freedom. Governments under ANY banner throughout ALL of history become infiltrated, corrupt and dark within relative short order. 'They' have shown, over time, their governance to be an abject failure. We MUST take care of ourselves and our fellow human beings, because they never have, and they NEVER will.

I grant you, it is a monumental task, and we are in it for the long haul...but, we have a monumental struggle ahead of us no matter what we do at this point. We may as well do it right and start from the ground up.

You're right, Odin. Though 'patience' is certainly one of your attributes, I did not use the right word to describe your predominant trait. Though there are many fine words that would fit here, 'perseverance' definitely describes the over-arching mettle.

In closing, and because I can not say it any better than you, I will quote your universal message...

"The attribute that we will all need is PERSEVERANCE, all while building COMMUNITY, doing OUTREACH and building RESISTANCE along the way in our struggle. That means being there for each other in celebrating our victories, and comforting each other in our defeats which inevitably we will have both."

Yes, working locally, but with a global overview. I think realistically there would need to be a central global agency for oversight. But loosely so. The cardinal issue to be guarded against will always be infiltration, hence the need to never have any one person in a key position of that agency, or local agency for that matter, for too long. Critical too, will be the need for agencies to be made up of a very diverse group ethnically and racially. In a 'People's Society' it would stand to reason that a fluid system of 'ordinary' people take care of local and global agencies.

The internet will be critical for democratic voting on issues. Iceland seemed to be making inroads, but I think they're being met with resistance now. I'll have to update and see.

The extremist conservative racist fucks who spew anti immigant rhetoric should all be identified, denounced, and retired.

THAT is the best course of action. They know it and some are getting the message cause they are scrambling to "evolve", others haven't gotten it and are planning to filibuster and/or vote against immigration reform.

I'm not gonna repeat myself, and I'm really not comfortable discussing the parties so much with you.

For me it is critical that I focus my time and efforts here specifically on the issues that occupy has taken a stand on and that will benefit the 99%.

This post is about immigration.

Do you have feelings on this issue? Do you support Occupies position?. What actions are you aware of? I heard there will be marches scheduled to coincide with congressional action (those corrupt fucks)

This is much more valuable to me than discussions about the parties. I hope you understand.

Of course I support immigration reform, as i went to three community lectures/workshops at Columbia University Saturday that discussed this and incarceration, and the detrimental effects it had on communities

The more we term ourselves "progressive" the more we are pigeonholing, and associating ourselves with the party of lost hope, the dems

I do understand that OWS promotes "progressive" ideas, but that 'word' has become synonymous with the democrats, much like the word 'patriotism' had twistedly become with the repubs and support of the Iraq war. The dems have betrayed us, and OWS should have no association with them. We have the chance in reaching well into the middle right (if they ever wake up) for support WITHOUT the word "progressive" ...which has become 'code' on here for democrats.... WITH that word our chances of success fall

And at this point having the term "Justice" being associated with either of these parties is ludicrous

In Congress, many Republicans recall that an amnesty in 1986, which was supposed to solve illegal migration, was followed by an even larger unauthorized influx.

In Arizona in 2005, more than 577,000 apprehensions were made of migrants crossing illegally, a surge that sparked a political furor in the state. Border officials declared that they would make a “last stand” here.

Last year in Arizona, the apprehensions (an imperfect but still useful indicator of unauthorized flows) dropped to 126,500, a 78 percent decline from 2005, a sharper decrease than seen elsewhere along the border. The recession in this country and drug-trafficking violence in Mexico also contributed to the falloff, here and along the length of the border. But in 2005, about half of all apprehensions in the Southwest were made in Arizona. Today, it is closer to one-third, with the largest share now shifted to Texas.

With tighter security along the line, more undocumented foreigners are trying to come through the border station. But recent changes have made it more difficult for smugglers to pass their clients with forged papers. Instead, officials said, smugglers rent out valid United States documents, and encourage their clients to make themselves look as much as possible like the people in the photographs.

"Politically swaraj is self-government and not good government (for Gandhi, good government is no substitute for self-government) and it means a continuous effort to be independent of government control, whether it is foreign government or whether it is national. In other words, it is sovereignty of the people based on pure moral authority."

"Adopting Swaraj means implementing a system whereby the state machinery is virtually nil, and the real power directly resides in the hands of people. Gandhi said, "Power resides in the people, they can use it at any time."[10] This philosophy rests inside an individual who has to learn to be master of his own self and spreads upwards to the level of his community which must be dependent only on itself. Gandhi said, "In such a state (where swaraj is achieved) everyone is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbour";[11] and also "It is Swaraj when we learn to rule ourselves."[12]

Gandhi explained his vision in 1946:

"Independence begins at the bottom... A society must be built in which every village has to be self sustained and capable of managing its own affairs... It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without... This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be a free and voluntary play of mutual forces... In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever widening, never ascending circles. Growth will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose center will be the individual. Therefore the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it."[13]"

These are wikipedia explaining Swaraj or self rule.

LeaderLESS can only mean anarchy, which implies violence. Self-rule is egalitarian rule.

Fuck the government!! Do what YOU think is right regardless of what they threaten do to you. If you feel salt bans are an injustice, then go make salt. If you feel that student loans are an injustice, then dont pay them back.

Gandhi was very good at doing thing his way, regardless of what the British Empire threatened to do to him.

Set me straight on Soros. Somebody, please. I get that he adapted to Nazis and did their work. I get that he is rich and has alternative motives of which we have to guess. I get that he was a kind of bearish investor or made a lot of money by knowing which organizations were too much in debt to survive ... and would go bankrupt.

I get that people say George Soros is a kind of communist/socialist/Liberal that may want to fun a kind of New World Order or UN Organization....

How can I understand George Soros? Is he really a bad man? Is his goal to destroy the current constitution? Or is he just a Banker who wants to allow banks to get Rich? Is he some kind of elitist that wants to excuse TBTF Bankers and let them avoid prosecution?

Seems like he is probably, a white collar crime guy, where he thinks we should allow executives to rip everyone off... a Real Bankers Friend. Some of the talk about communists under every bush is way over the top. No one wants to be a communist in the US or Europe today... since they really can't get rich in those places that are communist. Well, except for a few connected dudes.

Well, I posted some questions. Here is your answer: he is a wealthy liberal who seems to support OWS & Immigration. I guess I sort of remember that from last year.

I guess Soros is a Banker, so maybe he is a terrorist. Bankers & the Banker Trust that Roosevelt fought against seem to have taken over the Economy of the US ... and probably Europe. The Banker Trust seems to be creating all kinds of Dollars out of control really ... and instead of investing it into small businesses (the core of the US Economy) ... they invest in derivatives causing a huge imbalance in the US Economy and the US Federal Budget.

Let's see what damage we have:

1) FTC was created specifically to deal with the Banker Trust (1914), but the authority of the FTC to deal with banks was taken away from the FTC.

2) 1995 the Private Securities Litigation Act prohibits Anti-Trust and RICO charges be leveled at banks in Lawsuits... probably as a result of the Arrests and Lawsuits aimed at Fraudulent Banks in the Savings & Loan Scandals through the 1990s which resulting in prosecutions of 4000 people.

3) 1999, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealed the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act which seems to have created a Deregulation Banking Free For All
and Gresham's Dynamic where there are incentives for fraud and high risk casino bets.

4) 2002 Campaign (Financing) Reform Act seems to have open the doors to even more soft money going into Washington campaigns.

5) Citizens United VS. Federal Elections Commission obviously codifies Corporations as People who can make unlimited gifts to Politicians in Supreme Court Ruling.

6) Obviously Banks are Corporations that can buy politicians and changes to Regulations at will ... after all they also occupy key government offices and agency positions in cozy relationships which could be termed "Incestuous".

7) Obviously the power of the Bank Trust is stronger today than in 1913 when the Clayton Act was Signed & Ratified. You can't hope to win in court against corporations unless you have millions of dollars behind you as funding.

-Sorry those are just the main reasons that Banks Terrify me.

-I'm lost on Immigration. Immigrants from Central America are just men and women who need money and want to help their families. On the other hand having open borders has always helped small and large businesses with larger profit margins and downward pressure on wages. It could be that open borders was corporate strategy to fight Unions. Unions have been called Communist or Socialist. And you have to talk about the Banana Wars to put cheap labor and corporate strategy in context.

-The only thing I know for sure about Immigration - is that there has always been an imbalance between wages and opportunity.

you cannot just come into this country from another country and be a legal citizen with all the constitutional rights and opportunities that go with that. slur? stigmatize? too bad. that's p.c garbage.

So they got in and shut the door behind them. You sound so informed, Are you aware of the asian quotas (non white!), & south Americans (non white!!), What about African (way non white!!). You probably conveniently are uninformed about the the low quotas for those groups.

Are you informed about those details? Maybe those north western Europeans should have just let the policy that allowed them in continue.

Doesn't really seem fair.

What about now. Are you informed about the quotas per country. Have you detected a pattern as you became informed about those facts.?

around 1891 the us govt officially assumed the task of inspecting, admitting , rejecting ( due to disease) and processing all immigrants seeking admission into the usa. this covered people from ALL countries.

I did not specify any particular nationality.I was speaking of anyone who comes into this country, place of origin does not make a difference. People coming here illegally obviously need us more than we need them. And no, I do not believe in open borders.

What need? There's no need. There's only fighting for issues and challenging anti progressive right wing shills.

If you fail to stay on topic and choose dishonest immature personal attacks then I am honor bound to inform you and obligated to ensure you understand that your mistake constitutes bad form, low class, bad karma, so that you can learn from your mistake.

I don't establish you as a loser to boost my ego but only as a service to help you avoid that form of loss.

When the Nazis occupied Budapest in 1944, George Soros' father was a successful lawyer. He lived on an island in the Danube and liked to commute to work in a rowboat. But knowing there were problems ahead for the Jews, he decided to split his family up. He bought them forged papers and he bribed a government official to take 14-year-old George Soros in and swear that he was his Christian godson. But survival carried a heavy price tag. While hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were being shipped off to the death camps, George Soros accompanied his phony godfather on his appointed rounds, confiscating property from the Jews.

"Well, actually, in a funny way, it's just like in markets -- that if I weren't there -- of course, I wasn't doing it, but somebody else would -- would -- would be taking it away anyhow. And it was the -- whether I was there or not, I was only a spectator, the property was being taken away. So the -- I had no role in taking away that property. So I had no sense of guilt."

That same lack of guilt is what allows a few to take billions at the expense of the many. Same with Buffet and Paulson and Gates. Now is it really Soros' actions as a teen in Hungary you abhor or is it just his political beliefs?

If I didn't do it someone else would is a poor defense. He knew what he was an accomplice in. By the way, Snopes is also funded by Soros. His flagship organization is the Open Society Institute which in turn funds media matters, moveon, the midwest academy, etc. It's a long list.

I'm going to train you in how to back up your arguments with credible links. If you continue to repeat the false info that currently floods the internet, you will drown in it's slimy stench. Grab my hand and pull yourself out.

It's up to the person making a statement to support it with facts. Since you can't provide any facts, we have to assume there is no basis for your statement, that you've been caught repeating another person's fabricated lie.

Is that in your rule book ? how silly you are. i told you how to research it, you're lazy. i havent been " caught" repeating a lie ( more silliness). by the way,..also take the time to look up what fabricated means.

It sounds splendid, but here in reality we have a system that allows some people to dictate law to other people. And if lots of people embrace Swaraja, then that leaves an open playing field for those who still participate in our Republic.

The study of Swaraj sounds like it would be an interesting class if I was back in school, but here in the real world, it has no real bearing. Also, I am still not sure how conflict is resolved or enforced under such a regime . After all, that seems to be the reason we have a political body.

I believe the reason our nation is in the state it's in is because its current state is advantageous to a majority of Americans. At least a majority of Americans who are politically active, that is. Everyone else must be practicing Swaraj, leaving politics to the other.

I like the idea of ruling myself. But how do I get justice when others form cliques and corporations that wish to usurp my sovereignty?

Swaraj does not and shouldnt preclude the existance of a interstate-governmental body among soveriegn individuals. Self rule is not anarchy.

Constructivists beleive that 'states behave like individuals'. This is only true if individuals are treated like states. Therefore government ceases as a national institution and becomes an international institution.

A common law republic would be this international institution established to preserve each individual's right to rule themselves.

I don't follow. Say we democratically vote for universal healthcare by a three quarter majority would that than be the law of the land ? Or could a majority find that the chemicals you dump in your stream on your property is detrimental to others and vote to have you cease and desist.

Yes, if a univeral health care law passed via a consensus, it would become a common law. Meaning that it exists by the merit of it being a generally accepted norm and or custom.

Law exists only if it is followed and accepted.

If said individual is violating a common law, the yes he should punished for braking the law somehow. But if there is no common law prior to the majority deciding that what this particular individual is doing is wrong, then the majority does not have the right to pass a new law directed a single individual.

For the individual dumping chemicals to be required by law to cease and desist, there would have to be a common law outlawing such a practice.

I hear you? people would be grand fathered in. That is pretty much what we have now. except democracy is twice removed from the individual, and common law works best for those with the best lawyers.

For what it is worth, I believe your system would probably be just as prone to form into cliques and clubs, the only difference would be that instead of two strong parties In DC you would have multiple weak parties. Now whether this is good or bad I'm not going to pretend to know. But the point being: even if we were all sovereigns onto our self eventually people would begin to see that it is more advantageous to consolidate and incorporate. Even the Founders believed this. History is made by alliances, caucuses, and allegiances.

It may feel good to be an army of one, but it's great when you have allies at your back.

More than half of U.S. citizens believe that most or all of the country's 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday that highlights the difficulties facing lawmakers trying to reform the U.S. immigration system.
The online survey shows resistance to easing immigration laws despite the biggest push for reform in Congress since 2007.

Thirty percent of those polled think that most illegal immigrants, with some exceptions, should be deported, while 23 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be deported.

Only 5 percent believe all illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States legally, and 31 percent want most illegal immigrants to stay.

These results are in line with other polls in recent years, suggesting that people's views on immigration have not changed dramatically since the immigration debate reignited in Congress last month, according to Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

"It's not Americans' views that are shifting. It is that the political climate is ripe for this discussion," after the November election when Hispanics voted overwhelmingly in favor of Democratic President Barack Obama, she said.

What does citizenship mean? It has nothing to do with economics - the illegal immigraants don't understand the country as a sovereign state.It's more like a economic frontier territory that already had a higher living standard before they arrived.

Our national values have been diluted as evienced by the Mayor of New York tryng to win the Hispanic vote by speaking broken Spanish during his campaign for a third term.

OK The title of this post should read "who's illegal" not "whose illegal".

Incalculable numbers of hours are taken away from thinking about real problems of good government to learn to be fluent in a second or third language.

Imagine someone entering the country illegally with the belief that California still is a part of Mexico.

The hero of the Battle of Buena Vista, General Zachary Taylor, replaced James K. Polk as President early in 1848. One of the principal issues facing the Taylor administration was the status of California. The conflict with Mexico had ended, the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo had been signed. Americans hardly give the statehood of California a second thought.It maybe astonishing that some Mexicans living and working here in New York question the validity of this treaty.

Do we have to explain it to transplanted Mexicans until they agree or will there be some doubt remaining always? Why?

Ignoring the border and not recognizing important treaties are not problems United States citizens have to address. Are our politicians being misled by pressures of pursuing the Hispanic voters while neglecting Anglos that have been here legally for generations?

Whoa! Immigrants travel thousands of miles across oceans and deserts to give us something? What? Like the Spanish traveled across oceans to give the Aztecs and Incas something? Like Earthlings will travel to Mars to give the Martians something?
How about plunder and/or stay?

The United States has a quality of life that attracts more immigrants than any other nation. Americans who have lived here for generations have noticed a decline in the quality of life due to influx of immigrants.

Broadening the tax base in order to pay more taxes does not necessarily increase the quality of life. America doesn’t need more Dunkin Donuts shops and so forth sprouting up around the nation as a strategy to broaden its tax base. The Republican controlled House probably has one leg to stand on and not raising taxes on the rich is it. The working class is expected to shoulder the burden of paying more taxes. Immigrants didn’t come half-way around the world to pay higher taxes in the United States.

The economic solution is in changing the trade deficit to a trade surplus. America needs to export more valuable and profitable products than it imports. How can immigrants help with this? By going home and buying American or selling American. Not by staying here to buy and sell imports.

The capitalist idiots that outsourced and offshored an aggregate of American manufacturing are largely responsible for today’s economic dilemma.

Would you prefer that Syrian refugees come to the United states instead of Lebanon?

The US is much larger than Lebanon. But the US already allows more immigration than the rest of the world combined. This policy was never put to a popular vote. Polls prove the majority Americans are for illegal immigrants being deported. The USA is aware of its limits.

The US economy is the strongest in the world, we can absorb immigrants from all over the world. And do. And our economy is stronger for it.

So I would welcome Syrian immigrants, We have many already.

And immigrants prefer to start businesses here because we are the strongest economy in the world, we have the largest consumer middle class market that has been conditioned to buy any plastic crap put in front of us.

If you notice what is going on right now there will be automatic spending cuts forced on the economy March 1, 2013 because the Republican controlled House of Representatives doesn't want to increase taxes on the rich and the Democrat controlled Senate doesn't want to cut entitlements. If all of this immigration was helping the country then why are we having these fiscal and economic crises?

The government spends more than its revenues. Do you imagine China will relocate its factories to the US? Americans import too much stuff. For example, do Americans need to import chocolate chip cookies and chocolate bars from the Near East?

On a jury or on the Supreme Court, yes. The majority can decide what is right or wrong sometimes. In elections the majority of the vote decides the result. If electorate, the populace is educated and informed the majority can decide what is right or wrong. The problems arise when they are not educated and ignorant.

The questions of morality and legality start over a thousand years ago! Was it moral for illegal aliens to come here in the first place? Is their coming here saying that United States is more moral than where they came from? Americans should be more involved in illegal alien issues than they appear to be or Congress could really continue to botch this just like they botched the fine details of the federal budget crisis -

English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and the basis of common law legal systems in the Republic of Ireland, Commonwealth countries and the United States. The essence of English common law is that it is made by judges sitting in courts, applying legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them.

Since 1189, English law has been described as a common law rather than a civil law system (i.e. there has been no major codification of the law, and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive).

Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system originating in Western Europe, intellectualized within the framework of late Roman law, and whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent).

The great changes in European philosophy the 17th and the 18th didn't affect the Spanish world [very much]. Spanish believed in the efficacy of monopoly, a belief stemming from their desire to control.

Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially-trained, functionary judicial officers with limited authority to interpret law. Jury trials are not used, although in some cases, benches may be sat by a mixed panel of lay magistrates and career judges.

The mishandling of illegal aliens by making new law creates a precedent that undermines our judicial system. Without the new law the illegal aliens would be deported. The will of the majority of Americans is not being followed by our elected leaders.

There must have been millions of cases of legal deportations. Just not in the same year. Thank the Republicans for creating another mess no one wants to clean up.

Right now "WE" (USA) have minority rule - a very small minority of the wealthy and corpoRAT - because the majority of the population has no real say - they actually do - they just do not recognize their power.

Fine - you go ahead with that view - the fact of the matter "is" that the public has no real say once any representative is put in office - WHY? - because we do not confront them when they do not act in our interest.

Do you for a minute believe Mexico or Columbia or Venezuela or any countries in the Western or Eastern hemispheres are without immigration quotas?

The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. In 2006 the United States accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined.

But if you live here, you can't avoid supporting Wallstreet and so by proxy, all the organizations and lobbies they and those they own support, along with those of all the private equity firms and their organizations and lobbies.........................

What? Getting more from them isn't the point and isn't reality. Americans don't need that. Americans have given the world telephones, airplanes, television, transistors, penicillin, computers, American music, Internet, nuclear energy, rockets to the moon and beyond, and a sense of security to our allies.

Republicans are very vocal about self-sufficiency, private enterprise, smaller government. Their domination of government for the last 40 years has pulled the national mindset to the conservative right, including Democrats. Obama and Clinton are not Roosevelt Democrats. We would have had more job creation and Glass Steagall would still be alive if these were Roosevelt Democrats.

Immigrants who wanted to start their own businesses and grow the laissez-faire economy probably voted Republican during the last 50 years. On the other hand people that wanted more social programs and entitlements were Democrats.

The US trade deficit is appalling. The combination of outsourcing , off-shoring , mergers and trade deficits will sink the economy like the Titanic! The U.S. has run a trade deficit since 1975. In 2011, the deficit in goods and services was nearly $560 billion. U.S. exports of $2.1 trillion was less than its imports $2.67 trillion in goods and services.

Americans should consider importing less as a patriotic gesture to encourage our economic development to fill the vacuum created when factories moved overseas . This frenzy of importation is a major contributor to the economic collapse of the American auto industry and the city of Detroit in particular.

The iPhone contributed US$1.9 billion to the US trade deficit with the People's Republic of China (PRC). Unprecedented globalization, well organized global production networks, repaid development of cross-country production fragmentation, and low transportation costs all contributed to rational firms such as Apple making business decisions that contributed directly to the US trade deficit reduction. Global production networks and highly specialized production processes apparently reverse trade patterns: developing countries such as the PRC export high-tech goods—like the iPhone—while industrialized countries such as the US import the high-tech goods they themselves invented.

The main point is the telephone, television, airplane, electronic computer, transistor, personal computer, Internet, nuclear energy, moon landing, Hubble space telescope and many other products that define modernization were invented in the United States.

The real question is "Why has there been a trade deficit since 1975?"

The Republicans were in charge from 1970 through 2008 with exceptions of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton Presidencies!

Should it have been legal to allow a trade deficit?
How is the trade deficit helping us? Wouldn't it be illegal for the means of production and manufacturing and synthesis to be packed up and shipped out of town or out of the country in socialism?

It depends on your economic level. Those in the upper and middle classes benefit from the lower wages the immigrants charge for their labor, but the indigenous lower classes see their wages stagnate or fall because of the new immigrants.

That's the reason why we've heard talk of closing the porous borders for decades, but with no real force behind it. The rich know they benefit so they remain open. Even after 911 illegal immigration continued just as it had before.

Enforcing laws enacted by Congress against the corporations who have purchased Congress won't happen.

The people need representatives that they elect. Without campaign finance reform, the people really have no voice in government. The last Presidential election clearly showed that with 98.5% of the vote going to just two parties.

Indeed. Just read a story about the reasons Reagan's immigration reform failed. That law laid out punishment for those that hire illegals. The rich that plunder these folks weren't too happy. As long as there are people willing to hiire them they will keep coming here illgally and know that in another generation they will be forgiven and in the mean time they will escape prosection for their law breaking.

It's interesting that the wealthy not only benefit from low wage immigrant labor, but also from the incarceration, added litigation in the justice system, and eventual deportation of the same illegal immigrants.

I wonder how many people are ever prosecuted for hiring the millions of illegals?

You are correct in that - The campaign for presidency "is" over for the next couple of years. But the assholes in office should have been seen supporting the forwarding of good social concerns of the people.

That being said - I was surprised that the assholes stayed seated when Obummer said that he would be pushing forward opening more land to fucking um raping - I mean - Fracking and drilling for fossil fuel. I thought that they would be stupid enough to give a standing ovation in support of their buyers/masters in the fossil fuel corpoRATions/industries.

what he says and what he does, vastly different. remember that promise,.......no one making less than $ 250,000 will have their taxes go up? of how about ( regarding obamacare) if you like your current health insurance you can keep it AND it will cost you less?

Dude, you really need to stop replying because your posts are showing how stupid you really are. Don't you know the most controversial part of ACA, the mandate, was designed by the Heritage Foundation and is philosophically right wing.

The mandate was concocted in a 1989 Heritage Foundation brief titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans."

'If you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the expense of the team that’s putting the video together, this is a huge expense,' says Betances in the video.

Throughout the presentation, Betances has the USDA employees shout 'Bam!' when he makes a point he considers to be of note - psychologically making them reinforce his assertions.

Over 14,000 complaints filed. No prior investigation done.......well. 3,800 potential merit after a review by Vilsack) but 80 % of them the statute of limitations ran out.

The 5 states selected for civil rights training for the Farm Service Agency state leadership accounted for a total of 40% of FSA program complaints in FY 2008, and the 5 states selected for Rural Development trainings represented 42% of RD program complaints in the same period. These two agencies account for the bulk of USDA program complaints.

Don't worry. I'm sure repeating "The Pilgrims were illegal aliens" over and over solved all those problems and made the world a better place. "Citizen of the world" Samuel Betances saved the day. Nothing like real solutions to fix real problems.

The actual fact that you need a course not to be a racist prick is absolutely astounding. That said, the site you pulled from took everything out of context and that makes them a bunch of lame ass dipshits. I don't trust that shit.